JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 07.06.2008 in MVC No. 370/2000, passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the status before the Tribunal. 4. The facts of the case are that on 27.11.1999 one Gurupadappa Siddappa Nesur, who was aged about 38 years was riding moped Bajaj M-80 bearing No. KA-23/F-5973 with care and caution, on Mahalingpur Gokak Road near Budni, the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-23/5446 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against moped. Due to the impact, Gurupadappa died at the spot. At the time of the accident, vehicle number of the offending lorry was not known to the complainant. Later on, they came to know about the number of the said lorry and a criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry for causing the accident in question. 5. The deceased Gurupadappa was husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. He was doing hotel business and his monthly earning was Rs. 5,000/-. Petitioners were depending upon earning of the deceased. Petitioner No. 1 lost company of her husband and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have lost love and affection of their father and hence, they filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. 6. After service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer appeared through their counsel and the respondent No. 2 filed the written statement and contested the claim petition. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimants have established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and its insurance coverage with the appellant herein. 7. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioners proves that deceased Gurupadappa suffered fatal injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 27.11.1999 due to rrash and negligent driving by the driver of Mini Lorry Reg. No. KA-23/5446 as alleged in the petition? 7. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioners proves that deceased Gurupadappa suffered fatal injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 27.11.1999 due to rrash and negligent driving by the driver of Mini Lorry Reg. No. KA-23/5446 as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether the Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-23/5446 was duly insured with respondent No. 2 as on the date of accident and that the policy was in force? 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 proves that the driver of the said Mini Lorry had no valid and effective D.L. as on the date of accident as contended in para 5 of the objection statement? 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 further proves that the deceased himself was negligent and also contributed to the cause of accident as contended in objection statement? 5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 6. What order and award?” 8. In support of the claim petition, the claimants examined three witnesses as PWs. 1 to 3 and marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-9(a). Whereas, the respondents examined a witness as RW-1 and marked four documents at Exs.R-1 to R-4. 9. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the offending vehicle. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and since the deceased was aged 38 years, applied the multiplier 14 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,61,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire amount under the following heads:- S. No. Headings Amount 1. Loss of dependency and estate (24000 x 14) Rs. 3,36,000/- 2. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of compensation and love and affection of a father Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 3,61,000/- 10. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the insured vehicle was involved in the alleged accident and the same was due to negligence of driver of the said vehicle when it was specifically pleaded and proved from the material placed on record to the contrary. 15,000/- Total Rs. 3,61,000/- 10. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the insured vehicle was involved in the alleged accident and the same was due to negligence of driver of the said vehicle when it was specifically pleaded and proved from the material placed on record to the contrary. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that FIR, Ex.P-1 lodged by one Mr. Ashok soon after the alleged accident did not specify registration number of any vehicle and also contended that the Tribunal further ought to have seen that no material was placed on record either by the claimants or by the investigating police as to how the insured vehicle was traced and driver of which was prosecuted. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to take note that driver/owner/insured denied involvement of the vehicle and tendered his evidence as RW-1 which was fortified acquittal order of the criminal court in C.C. No. 123/2000. 11. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that Mahazar drawn on 28.11.1999) Ex.P-2 and M.V. Report of 06.12.2000 (Ex.P-3) fortified concoction pleaded by the insurer and insured. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that it was a case of hit and run and which was concocted to involve the insured vehicle with ulterior motive with help of concerned police who was shy to enter witness box to prove as to how insured vehicle was connected to the alleged accident. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has placed reliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Veerappa and Another vs. Siddappa and Another, ILR 2009 Kar 3562, wherein it has held that the fraud and justice never dwell together, an attempt on the part of the owner to collude with the claimants with the fond hope of saddling the Insurance Company to pay compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed another judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi vs. Govindappa and Another, 2013 (6) Kar. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed another judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi vs. Govindappa and Another, 2013 (6) Kar. L.J. 56 (DB), wherein it has held that the admission of guilt by the accused before the criminal court, paid fine, whether such record can be relied upon by the claimant, Tribunal disallowed the claim petition and held, merely because there was plea of guilt, the claimant is not entitled for compensation. 14. On placing reliance of the judgments of this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cases referred supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand and submits that the offending lorry is not involved in the accident and not the cause for the death of the deceased. On these primary grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing of the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 15. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Gurupadappa was riding moped Bajaj M-80 bearing No. KA-23/F-5973 with care and caution along with the pillion rider, Ashok (PW-2), on Mahalingpur Gokak Road near Budni, the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-23/5446 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against moped. Due to the impact, Gurupadappa died at the spot. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that PW-2, who was the pillion rider of the moped Baja M-80 bearing No. KA- 23/F-5973 has deposed in his evidence about the fact of the accident and manner in which the accident was occurred and he has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot read English or Kannada, but he can identify the numbers and some numbers were confronted to him in the cross-examination. He has stated that the numbers stated in the said document and he also given explanation that he has given information to the Police that the accident was caused due to the vehicle of a model of 709 and he repeatedly stated that the accident in question was caused due to mini lorry bearing No. KA-23/54446. Nothing is brought out to discard his evidence. He has stated that nobody have witnessed the said accident except himself. Nothing is brought out to discard his evidence. He has stated that nobody have witnessed the said accident except himself. The evidence of PW-2 appears to be quite natural and the accident was not occurred within a town or within the vicinity of a town. It was road going towards Mahalingpur to Gokak. Therefore, chances of persons looking to the accident that too in the night at 10:30 is not probable. Therefore, there are no other eyewitnesses and cannot be a ground to ignore the evidence of PW-2. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the respondents have produced copy of FIR at Ex.P-1. On the date of accident within 2 to 3 hours report was given to the Police about the accident. It is stated that the accident was caused by a mini lorry. It is also stated that the colour of the front portion of the lorry was blue which is admitted by RW-1. But he has stated it is 407 mini lorry. Ex.P-3 is motor vehicles Inspectors report. This is one of the circumstance to corroborate the case of the petitioner regarding identity of the lorry. Further the statement of the complainant is produced at Ex.P-8 wherein he has stated that from appearance there was no much difference between the 407 mini lorry and the offending lorry. Therefore, under shock and mistake he has mentioned the vehicle as 407 mini lorry. Further statement of complainant is to accepted when he saw death of his own relative and he was also going in the said vehicle as a pillion rider it is quite natural that he might be under a shock. Therefore, it is very much clear that the offending lorry bearing No. KA-25/5446 was involved in the accident and caused the death of the deceased Gurupadappa. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention he has placed reliance of the judgments in the case of Kusum Lata and Others vs. Satbir and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 646 , Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 693 and also the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 22223/2009 c/w MFA No. 21987/2009 disposed of on 24.03.2017 and submits that the ratio of these reliance are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 18. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,61,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire amount which is just and fair compensation and it does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is seen that the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased and they are the dependents of the deceased, who was aged 38 years and prior to his death, he was doing hotel business and earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal having regard to the fact that the accident was of the year 1999 has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and determined the compensation of Rs. 3,36,000/- towards loss of dependency. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional heads are just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 20. Whereas, in view of considering the evidence of PW-2 who was the pillion rider of the moped Baja M-80 bearing No. KA-23/F-5973 has deposed in his evidence about the fact of the accident and manner in which the accident was occurred and he has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot read English or Kannada, but he can identify the numbers and some numbers were confronted to him in the cross-examination. He has stated that the numbers stated in the said document and he also given explanation that he has given information to the Police that the accident was caused due to the vehicle of a model of 709 and he repeatedly stated that the accident in question was caused due to mini lorry bearing No. KA-23/54446. Nothing is brought out to discard his evidence. He has further stated that nobody have witnessed the said accident except himself. The evidence of PW-2 appears to be quite natural and the accident was not occurred within a town or within the vicinity of a town. It was road going towards Mahalingpur to Gokak. Nothing is brought out to discard his evidence. He has further stated that nobody have witnessed the said accident except himself. The evidence of PW-2 appears to be quite natural and the accident was not occurred within a town or within the vicinity of a town. It was road going towards Mahalingpur to Gokak. Therefore, chances of persons looking to the accident that too in the night at 10:30 is not probable. Therefore, there are no other eyewitnesses and cannot be a ground to ignore the evidence of PW-2. It is also seen that on the date of accident within 2 to 3 hours report was given to the Police about the accident. It is stated that the accident was caused by a mini lorry. It is also stated that the colour of the front portion of the lorry was blue which is admitted by R.W.1. But he has stated it is 407 mini lorry. Ex.P-3 is motor vehicles Inspectors report. This is one of the circumstance to corroborate the case of the petitioner regarding identity of the lorry. Further the statement of the complainant is produced at Ex.P-8 wherein he has stated that from appearance there was no much difference between the 407 mini lorry and the offending lorry. Therefore, under shock and mistake he has mentioned the vehicle as 407 mini lorry. Further statement of complainant is to accepted when he saw death of his own relative and he was also going in the said vehicle as a pillion rider it is quite natural that he might be under a shock. 21. However, on considering the evidence of PW-2 and the documentary evidence produced by the claimants and also on considering the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the offending lorry bearing No. KA-25/5446 was involved in the accident and caused the death of the deceased Gurupadappa and the compensation awarded to the claimants are also just and reasonable and does not call for any interference and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 07.06.2008 in MVC No. 370/2000, passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Belgaum, is hereby confirmed. 23. 22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 07.06.2008 in MVC No. 370/2000, passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Belgaum, is hereby confirmed. 23. The statutory amount in deposit and the lower Court records shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.